one easy way to solve a problem, is to get rid of it.
and yeah yeah yeah what about the innocent people in the country?? 3 years is long enough to walk out of iraq.....
2007-05-23 04:14:21 · 18 answers · asked by drpepperman2010 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Yep that would be a lot quicker, but we couldnt get them all and only the bad ones would find a way to survive. An answer to a question would be.........Why are we trying to rebuild a country that isnt ours and getting our people killed over it. Saddam is gone and that country is in worse shape now than it was. What we are trying to is like going into your neighbors house, taking everything out and fixing it the way you "think' it should be. We need to leave.
2007-05-23 04:26:22 · answer #1 · answered by adam r 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
We won't nuke the middle east because of the problems it will cause. Now turning Iraq into a parking lot by other means is another issue entirely.
After watching a news story on CNN yesterday afternoon I have to say that turning Iraq into a parking lot seems to be the most logical answer. However dark and cold it sounds these people are not only ignorant they are teaching their children the same. They teach their children at ages 4 and up to "swear on their parents".
USA does not have the moral right to tell anyone how to live so long as what they are doing is not affecting us. If the "terrorist" of the Muslim community can't get their people under control then I personally see no reason why a genocide isn't in order.
If they act like a wild animal, treat them like one. If they educate their children to act like wild animals then sadly we must treat them the same.
It is called SURVIVAL!
2007-05-23 04:33:10 · answer #2 · answered by malloryomae 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, no, I relatively have a larger theory. permit's placed each and every of the international places' names in a hat. Whichever u . s . we pull out gets nuked. yet permit's contain each and every of the international places of the international. in actuality, permit's placed united statesa. in there to boot so our little interest gets a sprint of Russian roulette. Yeah, which will make it extra spell binding. permit's additionally hire some warm female exhibiting banners with the call of each and every u . s . in the previous it gets nuked like in "the cost is acceptable" or some **** like that. Yeah, guy, that's a goddamn stable theory. How come we did no longer arise with it earlier?! ****, guy. each and every of the international is going to by surprise love us for randomly bombing international locations in keeping with our prejudices and categorizations. that's real genius, guy!
2016-11-26 19:37:27 · answer #3 · answered by philipp 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We just can't nuke the middles east because so many other country's have nukes and if we shoot they shoot. They probably would find out before it reachs them and just send one our way so both sides would die. Also the radiation from those warheads don't just affect that area they also go across the world flowing in the air.
2007-05-23 04:50:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
and after we do then what? considering WE started the war and then to wipe out several countries would be genocide of epic proportions. Should the global community then respond by nuking the USA from existence for their crimes and transgressions against humanity?
2007-05-23 04:42:49 · answer #5 · answered by Alan S 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Cause someone will nuke back. And considering how many countries hate the U.S., We'd prolly last about an hour before we were completely wiped off the face of the earth
2007-05-23 04:21:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
here's the irony of your statement.
the usa wants everyone else to disarm their nukes. but they don't follow the very rule they set up when it came to the nuke proliferation act.
so now you (if you have half a mind, and it really doesn't sound like you do so i don't expect you to understand this) can understand why so many other counties aren't following the lead of the so called leader of the free world.
2007-05-23 04:23:39 · answer #7 · answered by LS 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Lets start by nuking New Jersey!
2007-05-23 05:36:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, considering most of our military is over there right about now. I hope we hold off on that one for a bit.
2007-05-23 04:36:45 · answer #9 · answered by SelfnoSelf 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your problem is you're thinking small. Like the poster above said, "Why stop there?" We definitely need to take out most of Asia while we're at it.
2007-05-23 04:22:14 · answer #10 · answered by pm 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋